Thank you all for your comments.
I have now added access=no to the paths leading up to the site, and
changed the site from tourism=viewpoint to military=bunker with an
access=no added to the site for good measure. (Though historic=ruins
would probably be as appropriate.)
I have also changed the
The tag military=bunker is used not only for true bunkers, but for "any
kind of military installation built to withstand an attack." - quote from
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker
- Joseph Eisenberg
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:10 PM Bill Ricker wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Aug
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:42 PM Russell Nelson wrote:
> On 9/1/20 3:08 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> > Tourist Safety is dubiously best as most of the handrails and safety
> > lines are gone
> s/dubiously best/dubious at best/ ?
>
Russ is correct on the missing word !
Might be Auto-Carrot, i was
On 9/1/20 3:08 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
Tourist Safety is dubiously best as most of the handrails and safety
lines are gone
s/dubiously best/dubious at best/ ?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 19:55 stevea wrote:
> . And if it was historically a bunker, OSM should strive to tag this, I'm
> not exactly sure of the right mix of military=bunker and historic=yes
> flavors that might be absolutely correct, but something like those if not
> exactly those. Though
OSM comprises data but data are produced and interpreted by fallible
humans. I would argue that OSM doesn't "simply say" anything, because the
act of defining tags is a subjective process negotiated between individuals
with different ideas about, for example, what a "viewpoint" is. It's not a
31 Aug 2020, 05:38 by stevea...@softworkers.com:
> On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg
> wrote:
>
>> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to
>> be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to
>> be visiting sites that
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> 31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org:
>
> And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
> is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
>
OnAugust 31, 2020 at 1:12:09 AM PDT, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The same *will* happen to OSM; it is possible that today we can still
> get away with shenanigans like tagging a tourist attraction with "wink
> wink access=no but everybody goes there anyway"
...
> But we won't be able
> to deny this
I agree on the tagging points, my comment on mapmakers was a response to
the claim that maps show the world as it is. By definition, maps are only
symbols. Those symbols can get extremely complex but they remain an
approximation of the real world. OSM should always strive to reflect what
is
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg
wrote:
> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it
> to be shown...
>
In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the
exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites
31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org:
> And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
> is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
> that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could
> plaster the map with
On 8/31/20 4:12 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
And in my view, tagging something as "desirable to go there" via a
tourism=* tag, no matter how many
access=no/private/only_under_cover_of_darkness we add to that, that
would be disingenious.
Not so much "disingenuous" as misleading. Tourism implies
Hi,
On 31.08.20 05:38, stevea wrote:
> I don't mean to sound argumentative or antagonistic, but if someone more
> clearly draws a line between "entered map data" and "encouraged people (in
> any way) to do anything illegal," I'd like to follow that line. However,
> nobody has been able to do
Aug 31, 2020, 00:17 by frede...@remote.org:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/30/20 22:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
>
>> Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself.
>>
>
> In my mind, a viewpoint is not just something from where you have a nice
> view; it needs to be signposted or
On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg wrote:
> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to
> be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to
> be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This seems
> like a
I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to
be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to
be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This seems
like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark it
Joseph asks good, relevant questions regarding whether the access tag should be
private vs. no. But, yes, I agree Frederik, there absolutely should be one of
these two tags with that sign you displayed. (I've seen it many times driving
past here before the tunnel was built, it's a bit more
Hi,
On 8/30/20 22:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
> Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself.
In my mind, a viewpoint is not just something from where you have a nice
view; it needs to be signposted or called a viewpoint. This, while
enjoying some "destination" or
Aug 30, 2020, 20:01 by frede...@remote.org:
>
> While it is undeniably a de-facto tourist attraction, and undeniably
> offers great views, I think it should probably be changed to
> historic=ruins, access=no, and the tracks leading up to it should also
> be changed to access=no.
>
> Opinions?
Is the track closed to everyone, or is it perhaps access=private, if the
landowner has access?
There is also a more specific tag for military bunkers: military=bunker
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Amilitary%3Dbunker
- Joseph Eisenberg
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:16 PM brad wrote:
>
Agree, it seems pretty clear. Even if the signs are universally
ignored, OSM shouldn't mislead everyone about the legality.
On 8/30/20 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
"Devil's Slide Bunker" is a WW2 observation point near Pacifica in San
Mateo County in California.
OSM has the bunker
Hi,
"Devil's Slide Bunker" is a WW2 observation point near Pacifica in San
Mateo County in California.
OSM has the bunker listed as a "tourism=viewpoint", along with access
tracks from the nearby CA-1 highway:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.56868/-122.51506
The area is technically on
23 matches
Mail list logo
